Steve Jackson Games Forums

Steve Jackson Games Forums (http://forums.sjgames.com/index.php)
-   GURPS (http://forums.sjgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars? (http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=53605)

vicky_molokh 03-18-2009 10:01 AM

[Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Greetings, all!

Out of pure curiosity, what choices would a GM need to make in Spaceships to achieve a situation as seen in Star Wars. I'm not talking about converting SW spaceships from other systems. I'm talking about creating such a situation that players/PCs designing their own spaceships would build them roughly as seen in SW.

That is, what design switches should be set, what techy options be available etc. to create the SW situation 'naturally'?

Thanks in advance!

weby 03-18-2009 11:51 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Atleast there is a need for SM +4 and maybe even down to SM +3 in ship size as the canonocal SW material has most fighters in the 7meters to 13 meters range (SM +3 to +5).

As for design switches:
You need to limit the ability of larger ships to target smaller with their capital weapons and limit the hit probabilities with their antifighter weapons to fairly low.

You need to allow forcefields, with the large ships have very high DR ones.

Also acceleration rates for smaller ships need to be signifcantly higher than those of large ships.

To get the dogfighting feel they have you likely need something like pseudovelocity drives that allow changing the vector of the pseudovelocity, as no normal reactionless drive(or even less the purpoted "Ion" drives of SW) will "realistically" allow changing of vector in such a dogfighting way.

Even most of the smaller fighters have shields and hyperspace generators in addition to 2 weapons and the highe power engines.

So you need to find the space in a SM+3 ship(3 tons , where the control room will likely take 1 ton) for at minumum: Control room, a place for the droid, 2 engines, hyperspace drive, shield generator..

Kelly Pedersen 03-18-2009 12:30 PM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by weby
Atleast there is a need for SM +4 and maybe even down to SM +3 in ship size

The general consensus the last time this came up was that the TIE fighter was more of a streamlined SM +4, rather than SM+3. I'm not enough of a Star Wars geek to know if there are significantly smaller ships than a TIE Fighter in the Expanded Universe, but I don't remember any from the movies, anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by weby
You need to limit the ability of larger ships to target smaller with their capital weapons and limit the hit probabilities with their antifighter weapons to fairly low.

Particle beams tend to have negative sAcc, and I think particle beams are the most appropriate for Star Wars - engagements tend to happen at short range in that universe, which the low ranges of particle beams will support. Combine the low sAcc and the small size of fighters (remember, you get a bonus equal to SM to hit a ship), and have high pilot skill to dodge attacks, and you should be pretty good. Although I've thought for a while that a "maneuvering thrusters" system that added to a ship's Hnd stat would be a good idea as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by weby
You need to allow forcefields, with the large ships have very high DR ones.

I'd say the "partial" option for Force Screens is the default, if not automatic, given the way different sections of shields always seem to go down at different times. Also, a level or two of Hardening as a default seems appropriate.
Force screens in SW seem to be a "bubble" configuration, which seems to allow smaller ships to slip in underneath them. Possibly any ship more than 5 SM increments smaller than another ship can get underneath its shields if it closes to rendezvous range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by weby
Also acceleration rates for smaller ships need to be signifcantly higher than those of large ships.

Offhand, I'd say that dividing the thrust provided by the reactionless drives by 5 every 5 SM increments, starting at SM +10, sounds about right. That means that a SM +5 starfighter with a Super reactionless drive can pull 50 Gs, while a SM +10 cruiser can do 10 Gs, and a SM +15 Star Destroyer does 2 Gs. Vader's Executor Super Star Destroyer, at a whopping SM +22, would be pulling .4 Gs. On the other hand, its armor and force screen are probably so individually strong that it can afford to devote less systems to them, and throw in more engines.

Quote:

Originally Posted by weby
Even most of the smaller fighters have shields and hyperspace generators in addition to 2 weapons and the highe power engines.

Well, some of the smaller fighters have shields and hyperdrives. The TIE series is infamous for not having them, after all. I don't think any of the really small ships have a hyperdrive or shields at all, actually. The only TIE that does, as far as I know, was the Tie Defender, which is notably bigger than the other TIEs - it probably deserves SM +5.

AmesJainchill 03-18-2009 12:44 PM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
The Jedi starfighter series is the only real small fighter problem, most every other fighter is bigger....and has shields and hyperdrive.

jacobmuller 03-18-2009 04:09 PM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
TL11^, antigravity, pseudo-velocity reactionless drives and forcefields.

Forcefield options: angled, velocity, nuclear damper and radiation (but there should also be force-walls - no velocity option).

Weapons: Blasters! (Particle Beams in Spaceships).

Droids as crew.

HND differences make small craft dodge better than large craft; large craft need the room for other systems that small craft tend to allot to drive; small agile fighters v's large bumbling battleships.

weby 03-18-2009 11:36 PM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen
The general consensus the last time this came up was that the TIE fighter was more of a streamlined SM +4, rather than SM+3. I'm not enough of a Star Wars geek to know if there are significantly smaller ships than a TIE Fighter in the Expanded Universe, but I don't remember any from the movies, anyway.


Both the Yes a Tie fighter at 6 meters and the sith interceptor of the old republic era that is 7 meters long with the wings extended seem closer to SM +3 than +4, but they could fairly easily be handwaved as +4 and in the case of the tiefighter, the large wings add credibility to that.

Quote:

Although I've thought for a while that a "maneuvering thrusters" system that added to a ship's Hnd stat would be a good idea as well.
In the current Starwars game that I run I have such a module. Each such module adds +1 to HND, but gives -1 to SR when in use.


Quote:

Offhand, I'd say that dividing the thrust provided by the reactionless drives by 5 every 5 SM increments, starting at SM +10, sounds about right. That means that a SM +5 starfighter with a Super reactionless drive can pull 50 Gs, while a SM +10 cruiser can do 10 Gs, and a SM +15 Star Destroyer does 2 Gs. Vader's Executor Super Star Destroyer, at a whopping SM +22, would be pulling .4 Gs. On the other hand, its armor and force screen are probably so individually strong that it can afford to devote less systems to them, and throw in more engines.
I have just made 2 types of thrusters, with a maximum size for the high preformance ones.

Quote:

Well, some of the smaller fighters have shields and hyperdrives. The TIE series is infamous for not having them, after all. I don't think any of the really small ships have a hyperdrive or shields at all, actually. The only TIE that does, as far as I know, was the Tie Defender, which is notably bigger than the other TIEs - it probably deserves SM +5.
Also the advanced tie fighter(the one Darth Vader had at death star and later was seen in larger numbers) at 9 meters had both hyperdrive(though slow) and shielding.

The Tie defender is also 9 meters, but has more massive remaining structure with the 4 weapons instead 2, faster hyperdrive and so on..

AmesJainchill 03-19-2009 10:51 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by weby
In the current Starwars game that I run I have such a module. Each such module adds +1 to HND, but gives -1 to SR when in use.

I'll be yoinking that, thanks!

OldSam 11-05-2009 05:05 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
hi,
one thing of relevance for all spaceships in a Star Wars Campaign is the piloting skill... Do you think that it's appropriate for Star Wars that the one skill "piloting (High-Performance Spacecraft)" covers all available ships in space?

IMO it's actually a too broad field for only one average-skill so I was thinking of good differentiations without going into much detail - a different skill for each fighters, shuttles, corvettes etc. would certainly be unhandy and too hard.

Maybe a suitable solution would be based on the Size-Modifier, something like small, medium and large ships, what do you think?

Basing on the table from Spaceships Vol. 1 with a look on the Handling etc. my suggestion would be "Small (Up to SM+6)", "Medium (SM+7 to +9)" and "Large (SM+10 and above)" [100yards+ and 10.000+ tons].

Would this be a good approach? Other solutions? Or do you think that the one skill with some familiarities is sufficient?

Ulzgoroth 11-05-2009 05:26 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen (Post 757584)
Particle beams tend to have negative sAcc, and I think particle beams are the most appropriate for Star Wars - engagements tend to happen at short range in that universe, which the low ranges of particle beams will support. Combine the low sAcc and the small size of fighters (remember, you get a bonus equal to SM to hit a ship), and have high pilot skill to dodge attacks, and you should be pretty good. Although I've thought for a while that a "maneuvering thrusters" system that added to a ship's Hnd stat would be a good idea as well.

When you factor in the extremely short ranges at which fighters engage, I think the accuracy is quite a bit better than you're giving it credit for.

Spaceships 4 rules that you probably want to use:
-All cinematic piloting options. (Hugging the Enemy is the basis of Trench Run Disease, a codified anti-capital tactic in the EU.)
-Accidental Collisions While Dodging.
-Airplane-style dogfights (if not using a grid).
-Cockpit Multitasking.
-Exploding Spaceships and Fireballs.
-(maybe) Relative Target Size.

Also, plasma beams might be a closer fit than particle beams.

I don't know how you're going to convince designers that all spacecraft need to be streamlined, though. For just one of the many issues...

EDIT: Added notes:
-No guns.
-Missiles cannot be set for fragmentation. X-ray heads are right out.
-Nobody uses VRF weapons. The only exception I can think of is the turrets on the Millennium Falcon. Most weapons are RF, though.

SuedodeuS 11-05-2009 08:00 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OldSam (Post 878692)
hi,
one thing of relevance for all spaceships in a Star Wars Campaign is the piloting skill... Do you think that it's appropriate for Star Wars that the one skill "piloting (High-Performance Spacecraft)" covers all available ships in space?

IMO it's actually a too broad field for only one average-skill so I was thinking of good differentiations without going into much detail - a different skill for each fighters, shuttles, corvettes etc. would certainly be unhandy and too hard.

Maybe a suitable solution would be based on the Size-Modifier, something like small, medium and large ships, what do you think?

Basing on the table from Spaceships Vol. 1 with a look on the Handling etc. my suggestion would be "Small (Up to SM+6)", "Medium (SM+7 to +9)" and "Large (SM+10 and above)" [100yards+ and 10.000+ tons].

Would this be a good approach? Other solutions? Or do you think that the one skill with some familiarities is sufficient?

I remember the Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook (d20) had three classes of ship - starfighters, space transports, and capital ships. Piloting each one was a seperate feat. Starfighters were anything up to 20 meters long and 49 metric tons (SM+6), space transports were up to 100 meters and 499 metric tons (SM+10 for length, but only SM+7 for weight), and capital ships were anything beyond that. So, your numbers look pretty good. I'd personally change the naming scheme to "small=fighter," "medium=transport," and "large=capital."

jacobmuller 11-05-2009 08:14 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Sounds like Optional skill specialisation. Worth just +1 for the opted class but a rules option isn't necessarily a player option - GM picks the options and the players build round them.

edit: just thinking about relative SM - the suggested limit was+/-4? Missiles would be the most drastically affected. Way easy to hit for PtDef and they'd have hopeless targeting. They'd be useful only as anti-fighter ordnance - massive overkill - or overwhelming salvos - expensive - or planetary bombardment - evil empire punishment for unimportant backwaters.

Kelly Pedersen 11-05-2009 09:33 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth (Post 878698)
When you factor in the extremely short ranges at which fighters engage, I think the accuracy is quite a bit better than you're giving it credit for.

Not quite sure what you mean here? My main point about particle beams was that low sAcc led to them being primarily practicle at short ranges, which is good since we want to emulate the close-in dogfighting style of SW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth
I don't know how you're going to convince designers that all spacecraft need to be streamlined, though.

Honestly, I'm not sure that all spacecraft, or even most spacecraft, in SW are streamlined, at least in the Spaceships sense. As I understand it, a spaceship "streamlined" as Spaceships uses the term would be something that would be at least somewhat capable of areodynamic flight without superscience stuff like contragravity. Really, only a few of the starfighters really seem to qualify for that.

Ulzgoroth 11-05-2009 10:22 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen (Post 878776)
Not quite sure what you mean here? My main point about particle beams was that low sAcc led to them being primarily practicle at short ranges, which is good since we want to emulate the close-in dogfighting style of SW.

Fair enough. My point was that a slightly low sAcc isn't going to keep them from tearing those fighters into little plasma puffs on its own, considering that the average range between a fighter and a capital ship exchanging fire is in the Zero category.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen (Post 878776)
Honestly, I'm not sure that all spacecraft, or even most spacecraft, in SW are streamlined, at least in the Spaceships sense. As I understand it, a spaceship "streamlined" as Spaceships uses the term would be something that would be at least somewhat capable of areodynamic flight without superscience stuff like contragravity. Really, only a few of the starfighters really seem to qualify for that.

I think they are...they they fly through atmosphere fast and contain obvious streamlining features. They might count as not winged, due to doubtful lift-generating qualities of their 'aerodynamic' elements, but they don't need wings when they have both contragrav and high-thrust reactionless engines.

OldSam 11-08-2009 06:30 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
one more thing about the Piloting-skills for SW...

if we have:
- Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft/Small) -- Fighter, Shuttles, ... (-SM6)
- Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft/Medium) -- Freighter, Corvettes... (SM7-9)
- Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft/Large) -- Cruiser, Heavy-Transport... (SM10+)

...then which defaults from one to another would be appropriate in your opinion?

Three Possibilities:
1)
Small to Medium -2 and to Large -4 et vice versa.
Medium to Large -2 et vice versa.
2)
All default to one another at -2?
3)
All default to one another at -4?

(though I don't want to be too strict, I'm not sure if -2 is really enough differentiation...? -4 would certainly be a really clear difference but it makes defaulting not easy...)

Logically the size-differentiation would also apply to to Piloting(Aerospace) and Mechanics(High-Performance Spacecraft).
Mechanics basically suggest defaulting to one another at -4, though types vehicles can be more related or very different...
(can we assume that along with a greater difference in SM the used type of systems and controls is also more noticeable changing?)

Kelly Pedersen 11-08-2009 11:01 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OldSam (Post 880024)
one more thing about the Piloting-skills for SW...

if we have:
- Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft/Small) -- Fighter, Shuttles, ... (-SM6)
- Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft/Medium) -- Freighter, Corvettes... (SM7-9)
- Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft/Large) -- Cruiser, Heavy-Transport... (SM10+)

...then which defaults from one to another would be appropriate in your opinion?

By default, all of those are covered by a single skill. If we want to sub-divide them, it's simplest, in my opinion, to call them specializations of the base skill. So they become one category easier, and default to each other at -2.

OldSam 11-08-2009 11:41 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen (Post 880076)
By default, all of those are covered by a single skill. If we want to sub-divide them, it's simplest, in my opinion, to call them specializations of the base skill. So they become one category easier, and default to each other at -2.

well, unfortunately the Basic Set handles this skill too simplistic for a setting with many different spaceships like Star Wars in my opinion (for comparison: there is an own skill each for light and heavy airplaines...)
that said, specializations can be nice to have as an extra option (e.g. Piloting (Spacecraft/Small, Tie-Fighters)), but the "basic"-skills for piloting spaceships would be too easy if they are not average level.

Lord Azagthoth 11-09-2009 10:10 PM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
I have made categories:

Piloting(Capital;Fighter/Bomber; Freighter/Transport; Utility Craft) in the same way as I have divided the starships.

Specialties are special maneuvers (e.g., Talon Roll)

Familiarities could include different kinds of ship inside one class (e.g., X-wing; TIE Fighter; TIE Defender)

OldSam 11-10-2009 05:58 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Azagthoth (Post 880845)
I have made categories:
Piloting(Capital;Fighter/Bomber; Freighter/Transport; Utility Craft) in the same way as I have divided the starships.

Do you really think a 4th class is needed? Moreover utility craft doesn't seem to be unequivocal in comparison to Transport etc.
I'd say an approach with a well-defined differentiation (like the SM-Value or something like that) would probably be the best way. Also like SuedodeuS wrote, it seems to be compliant with the implementation of the original Star Wars RPG:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS
I remember the Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook (d20) had three classes of ship - starfighters, space transports, and capital ships. Piloting each one was a seperate feat. Starfighters were anything up to 20 meters long and 49 metric tons (SM+6), space transports were up to 100 meters and 499 metric tons (SM+10 for length, but only SM+7 for weight), and capital ships were anything beyond that. So, your numbers look pretty good. I'd personally change the naming scheme to "small=fighter," "medium=transport," and "large=capital."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Azagthoth
Specialties are special maneuvers (e.g., Talon Roll)
Familiarities could include different kinds of ship inside one class (e.g., X-wing; TIE Fighter; TIE Defender)

Listing some examples for special maneuvers is a cool idea! =)
Though these should be "Techniques" not Specializations - unless you didn't mean that ;-). I just had a look on the techniques shown in Spaceship4 p.31, there are already some samples like "Reversal Maneuver".

Lord Azagthoth 11-10-2009 08:14 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
With Utility Crafts I mean specialized spacecrafts (asteroid miner, repair craft, etc.). The Pilot skill could also include the operation of the specialized tools of the spacecraft.

I also like the SM way of dividing the Pilot skills. Its easy to use and does not leave any room for discussions.

For the maneuvers,... yep, I did mean Techniques.

SuedodeuS 11-10-2009 10:39 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Azagthoth (Post 880975)
With Utility Crafts I mean specialized spacecrafts (asteroid miner, repair craft, etc.). The Pilot skill could also include the operation of the specialized tools of the spacecraft.

The Pilot skill should be for, well, piloting. Any specialized tools should be handled with the appropriate skills. Additionally, I suspect the specialized tools of an asteroid miner and repair craft are going to be quite different, so why should one specialization work for both?

Additionally, if you allowed Pilot to work such tools, then logically you should allow it to work with the specialized tools of other craft - notably, the weaponry of fighters and bombers. Do you really think Gunner and Artillery should be replaced by Pilot, just because you also happen to be flying the machine?

The upshot of all this is that the divisions of the Pilot skill should only be based on how you fly the things. In SW, presumably fighters, transports, and capital ships are each piloted a bit differently. I'd expect utility craft to fall into one of these categories (most generally transports) rather than somehow fit into their own.

martinl 11-10-2009 11:17 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Don't SW space battles typically occur at rangers considerably closer than WWI capital ship battles?

DemiBenson 11-10-2009 11:20 AM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OldSam (Post 880024)
one more thing about the Piloting-skills for SW...

if we have:
- Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft/Small) -- Fighter, Shuttles, ... (-SM6)
- Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft/Medium) -- Freighter, Corvettes... (SM7-9)
- Piloting(High-Performance Spacecraft/Large) -- Cruiser, Heavy-Transport... (SM10+)

...then which defaults from one to another would be appropriate in your opinion?

Leave off the capitol ships - that's Shiphandling and Crewman.

In the SW universe, there's no such thing as low-performance spacecraft (except possibly escape pods), and because of contragravity the default is that all spacecraft have some atmospheric capacity. So you can reduce those to Piloting (Fighter) and Piloting (Destroyer) which covers freighters, transports, etc.

For defaults, make the two Piloting skills default at -4 or more, depending on commonality of vessel's origin and dramatic necessity. Familiarity penalties take care of the X-wing to TIE fighter switch (at most a -2 penalty), and note that in the SW universe, different variants of the same basic shape have no familiarity penalty (all TIE-types have the same cockpit, as do Y-Wings and snow speeders).

Since CG craft are the norm, note that that also means we have Piloting (Repulsorlift). Driving skill is only used for things like AT-ATs and other ground-based craft.

If you want to have an ace pilot who can fly anything, it helps a great deal to get 3D Spacial Sense, or take a talent to cover vehicle operation, or take the Vehicles! wildcard skill.

Demi

OldSam 11-10-2009 02:19 PM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SuedodeuS (Post 881036)
The Pilot skill should be for, well, piloting. Any specialized tools should be handled with the appropriate skills. Additionally, I suspect the specialized tools of an asteroid miner and repair craft are going to be quite different, so why should one specialization work for both?

yeah, that's really a point...
On the other hand I just learned that Ultra-Tech (p.229) indeed uses the piloting skill for operating utility vertol... (with specialization 'vertol' - though they generally also recommend having Electronic Operations Sensors and Communications)

Obviously there can be a lot of different 'exotic' utility crafts with different size, different tools etc. and working with these vehicles and all their tools obviously covers a much wider field of skill than "mere piloting" of other SW-Spacecraft...
So in my opinion this calls for an option which Kromm recently mentioned in another thread about piloting skill: It's "Exotic Equipment Training" (Power-Ups 2: Perks, p. 9) :-)

This would mean that an operator needs to spend 1 point to buy Exotic Equipment Training for the specific type of Utility Craft - then he knows all the specific controls and tools etc. With this specific requirement I'd say it would not be necessary to have an extra Piloting Specialization for utility craft but the Operator could use the Piloting-Skill for the Size of the specific Utility-Spacecraft...
(being very strict of course one could require both, if you think we have too much asteroid-farmer-players otherwise... *g*)

OldSam 11-10-2009 02:45 PM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ectropy (Post 881058)
Leave off the capitol ships - that's Shiphandling and Crewman.

well, but that's not everything... you're right that shiphandling (captain and 1st officer) and crewman-skills are essential for large ships but you still need a pilot, too... ;-)


Quote:

Originally Posted by ectropy (Post 881058)
In the SW universe, there's no such thing as low-performance spacecraft,

yes, I just left the long name because it was the RAW-default... :p
of course in SW it means just Piloting (Spacecraft)...


Quote:

Originally Posted by ectropy (Post 881058)
and because of contragravity the default is that all spacecraft have some atmospheric capacity.

that's an interesting point... I didn't know about that - do the others agree?
so far I used piloting(aerospace) for rolls to fly to/from/in atmosphere - what would be your alternative solution? just ignoring it or giving a penalty...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ectropy (Post 881058)
So you can reduce those to Piloting (Fighter) and Piloting (Destroyer) which covers freighters, transports, etc.

personally I don't really like these pure military skill-names because 'Fighter' also covers shuttles and other small spacecraft and 'Destroyer' for a Freighter/Transporter is even worse =)

Ulzgoroth 11-10-2009 02:50 PM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OldSam (Post 881133)
well, but that's not everything... you're right that shiphandling (captain and 1st officer) and crewman-skills are essential for large ships but you still need a pilot, too... ;-)

Not if you're using Spaceships. You just need a helmsman with Crewman, and the captain or XO directing them.

DemiBenson 11-10-2009 03:26 PM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by OldSam (Post 881133)
that's an interesting point... I didn't know about that - do the others agree? so far I used piloting(aerospace) for rolls to fly to/from/in atmosphere - what would be your alternative solution? just ignoring it or giving a penalty...?

I'd say ignore it. With CG lifters and those superscience engines, there's no reason they have to worry about the transition from space to atmosphere, so the "aerospace" parts is just a part of the regular ship's controls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldSam (Post 881133)
personally I don't really like these pure military skill-names because 'Fighter' also covers shuttles and other small spacecraft and 'Destroyer' for a Freighter/Transporter is even worse =)

Ok, so use Small/Large, or Short-term/Long-term (for accommodations), or whatever else fits your aesthetic.

Demi

vicky_molokh 11-10-2009 03:29 PM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ectropy (Post 881156)
I'd say ignore it. With CG lifters and those superscience engines, there's no reason they have to worry about the transition from space to atmosphere, so the "aerospace" parts is just a part of the regular ship's controls.

I always wondered what the Aerospace speciality is bad at.

RyanW 11-10-2009 07:22 PM

Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by martinl (Post 881056)
Don't SW space battles typically occur at rangers considerably closer than WWI capital ship battles?

Well, in the original trilogy, the only real space battle between opposing fleets was the Battle of Endor. The Alliance fleet specifically (and seemingly unorthodoxly*) closed to "point blank range" to prevent being targeted by the Death Star.

The new trilogy had the Battle of Coruscant, but by the time Ep III came out, my ability to care was fully exhausted.

*It's a word!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.